Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

The local Member for Mitchel Troy attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Troy House has great historical importance to the surrounding area and has sympathy with the desire to save the house.

 

·         However, a number of concerns have been raised by local residents and town and community councillors expressing concern regarding a range of issues.

 

·         This application, if approved, will affect an organic dairy farm and the agricultural industry in Monmouthshire could suffer.

 

·         There are environmental concerns, flood risk issues and also concerns about the integrity and heritage of the building.

 

·         Access to the property - There is a history of traffic using the junction.  However, over the past 30 years, traffic volumes have increased considerably in the Monmouth area.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the volume of traffic using the road with traffic exiting the Troy Farm junction, as it is located on a blind bend.

 

·         Whilst there have not been many reported road traffic accidents, the chevron signs indicate that there have been road traffic accidents at this location.

 

·         This junction is currently not being heavily used.  However, approval of the application will generate a considerable increase in traffic using this junction and the lane, mixing with cattle movements which occur twice a day along the lane.  There is a risk of damage to vehicles.

 

·         If luxury apartments are being created, the access route, in its current location, is inadequate. A better, more appropriate access route should be considered.

 

·         The local Member would like the Committee to consider refusing the application to allow an amended planning application to be put forward with a new access route that is safe for all road users.

 

·         The local Member expressed disappointment that there is no Section 106 Agreement with the application.

 

·         There is a strength of local feeling that whilst there is sympathy and recognition that there is a need to save Troy House and its character be protected, there are a considerable number of objections to the application that have been received.  Local knowledge is important.

 

Mr. B. Thomas, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The application was made in December 2008 and has been subject to significant delay.

 

·         The application is akin to a mini village in the open countryside within an area of outstanding natural beauty. The development cannot be considered in keeping with that setting.

 

·         The application is a departure from the Local Development Plan (LDP), as it proposes a new build development in the open countryside and is contrary to local and national planning policies.

 

·         The overriding concern is the preservation of the historic asset, namely, the building itself.  Preservation at all cost and contrary to many other material considerations is not fundamental to heritage preservation.

 

·         Detailed discussions have failed to acknowledge or remedy fundamental flaws in the application in relation to highways.  The Highways audit compares the likely traffic of the development to a school, whereas the school run from these premises produced less traffic as it had been a boarding school.  Nearly 30 years have passed since the building was last used as a school.

 

·         The property is in a poor state of repair and notice had recently been issued for urgent works to be undertaken. Where there is an abandoned use there is nothing in law or policy which determines abandoned use must, or should be revived.

 

·         The viability study was presented in December 2008.  The study is 10 years out of date.  Therefore, to argue that the proposal is viable is irrational.  Costs have increased during this period. 

 

·         The conditions proposed in the report of the application should be addressed prior to determination of the application.

 

·         A key concern is that little consideration has been given to the issue of traffic safety linked to Troy Farm, as it is a commercial dairy. Milking of cows is undertaken twice daily. The cows use the lane to access and leave the milking parlour for a period of between four to six hours per day for a period of eight months per annum. Heavy goods vehicles and milk tankers also visit the farm on a daily basis.

 

·         The area is located in Flood Zone C in an undefended flood plain.  It is regarded as being a highly vulnerable development within TAN 15.  Such residential development should not be permitted.

 

·         The application should therefore be refused.

 

Mr. G. Frecknall, applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The applications have been scrutinised over a period of ten years and have been subject to requests for further information, supporting statements and reports from specialist consultants throughout that period.

 

·         All of the information requested has been provided in agreement with the local Authority. All submitted information was subject to consultation, as required.

 

·         In January 2009, the same scheme was presented to Mitchel Troy Community Council and the community council had supported the application, as presented.

 

·         With regard to the access, the highways standards were subject to two independent reports by highway engineers. It had been concluded that there were no highway grounds on which the application should be refused.

 

·         The report that has been presented to the Planning Committee is a fair and independent statement of fact and that the conclusions drawn and recommendations with conditions are reasonable and appropriate.

 

·         A revised viability study was produced.

 

Having received the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         It would be difficult to provide an alternative access to the site. A revised planning application with an alternative access route would make the whole scheme unviable. It was noted that an alternative access route was considered by the applicant.  However, concerns had been identified in terms of land ownership and the cost of providing this access road.  The applicant therefore decided not to proceed with an alternative access route.

 

·         Buildings of this type, over the years, tended to be extended.  Therefore, further development of this property would be in keeping with buildings of a similar nature.

 

·         Approval of the application would restore an historic building.

 

·         The cows will be milked at scheduled times of the day so residents will be aware of the times in which the cows are likely to be walking the lane.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the ground floor units would be most vulnerable to flooding.  The ground floor could be used as a utility area / gym where there would be less of an impact if flooding occurred.

 

·         In terms of the viability of the scheme, viability is a material consideration when looking at restoring Troy House. An updated viability study had been undertaken. The Planning Department considers this acceptable to undertake the work that is required to restore and preserve the building.

 

·         Section 106 funding could not be requested in terms of this scheme.

 

·         There are 63 parking spaces proposed and there will be at least one parking space per dwelling. The Highways Department, overall, considers that the proposed parking provision is acceptable.  The site will be managed by a private management company ensuring that vehicles will be parking in the designated parking spaces.

 

·         In terms of potential flooding of the ground floor properties, the new build development will be above the flood levels.  Therefore, these ground floor units in the 1 in 100 year climate change will be flood free. The only building that would be affected by flooding would be Troy House.  To change the proposal of the ground floor to accommodate a utility area / gym where there would be less of an impact if flooding occurred, this would have an impact on the inherent character of the building and some of the ground floor rooms would have to be retained as they currently are.

 

·         Maintenance of the access track would be a civil matter for the applicant and the land owner to agree upon.  In planning terms, the principle of the access is acceptable.

 

·         Authorisation had been granted to serve an urgent works notice to the owner of Troy House.  However, the Planning Department was keen to move the application forward which would address the works issues relating to Troy House.  The option to serve an urgent works notice is still valid.

 

·         Conditions should be amended to ensure vehicles delivering to the site should be accommodated from the highway during the construction period.

 

·         The future of the building is the primary concern. This application might be the best opportunity to save Troy House.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor R.J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor J. Becker that application DC/2008/00723 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to an amendment to the conditions that vehicles delivering to the site be accommodated from the highway during the construction period.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           2

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2008/00723 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to an amendment to the conditions that vehicles delivering to the site be accommodated from the highway during the construction period.

 

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping will notify the Welsh Government of the Planning Committee’s decision.